Table of Contents

Outside events:
The Science Fiction Association of Bergen County meets on the second
Saturday of every month in Upper Saddle River; call 201-447-3652 for
details. The New Jersey Science Fiction Society meets on the third
Saturday of every month in Belleville; call 201-432-5965 for details.

Extraordinary Times:
This is just a side note. On the radio they were quoting some
politician asking whether Clinton is really the right sort of
President to have during these extraordinary times. I am not going
to argue that point right now. But what struck me as interesting
is that I was just listening to a speech by John Kennedy and he was
saying that he was President during extraordinary times. Now my
question is if those were extraordinary times and these are, just
when were the ordinary times? Does it mean anything to say times
are ordinary? And if the times ever do get ordinary, does that
make the times extraordinary in and of itself? But I get a little
itchy when someone tells me the times are extraordinary. They
obviously are trying to strike some sort of sympathetic chord with
their rhetoric. Don't trust anyone who uses that phrase. [-mrl]

Clinton:
Well, I have to admit I called this one wrong. I did not expect
the President of the United States, particularly this President who
knew he was the constant target of scandal mongers, to do something
as stupid as to have sex with a subordinate while in office. There
are some people I personally know who do have illicit sex, and it
seems a perfectly natural part of life--uh, other people's lives,
that is. But I had thought this President was above that. Not
that I thought he was above wanting illicit sex, but I expected he
would mind his Ps and Qs until he was out of office.

I was at the Toronto Film Festival when the story was breaking.
Frequently Canadians in line would ask us what we thought about our
President and the scandal. It was clear that a lot of them thought
that all Americans had gone crazy. I am not sure I don't think
that myself. I would guess that fully half the festival films we
were seeing were at some point about sex. And I don't remember a
single example of sex between a married couple. (P.S.: Evelyn
reminds me that in SHATTERED IMAGE the two main characters are on
their honeymoon. Okay, one instance of licit sex.) Illicit sex is
one of the primary fascinations of our society. We just generally
don't like to think of our Presidents having sex just like we don't
like to think of them going to the bathroom, though I am sure they
do. But then when we find they have broken some rules it is hardly
surprising. It is generally acknowledged that some Presidents had
adulterous sex while in office. There was Kennedy with Marilyn
Monroe, FDR with Lucy Mercer, Eisenhower with somebody or other.
The Canadians we talked to were generally urbane enough that they
did not seem very shocked about Clinton and generally they were
more curious what the fuss was about.

We seem to have two kinds of reaction in this country. We have
those who want to put this on the level of Watergate and those who
basically shrug it off after hearing the details. For the most
part the American people do not believe this is a Watergate-level
offense. The split may be along party lines. But the last I heard
the President's popularity ratings are not even suffering. This is
after all is said and done a victimless crime, or if there is a
victim it is Hillary. And the people who hate Clinton generally
hate Hillary even more.

Watergate was very different. It was about a President who tried
to cheat on an election. An election is how in a democracy the
people get their voice in national policy. Cheating in an election
is basically stealing from the people their voice in government
policy. It was taking away their right to choose. Showing the bad
character to lie in order to cover-up an affair seems pretty tame
by comparison. Trying to sway elections much more directly does
hurt the American people and they were not in a forgiving mood.
What Clinton has done for the most part does not harm the American
people. This is probably why, while the press is really angry with
Clinton, the people are much more sanguine.

In MRS. DOUBTFIRE Charles Durning is obviously taken with Robin
Williams's date. He asks Williams "Does she have a girlfriend?"
"Well," Williams says apologetically, "this is the '90s." And that
was just a throwaway joke. In most other professions or in most
other countries what Clinton did would make for lukewarm gossip.
And if the press is disappointed that it is not making more of an
impact, well, this is the 90s. [-mrl]

Capsule: Wow! Pretty tough to imagine this not
being the best film I see this year. Three
buddies committed a crime in Malaysia, two left
the country, and one was caught. If neither of
the free buddies go back to stand trial the
caught man will hang. Whoever goes back will
be volunteering for prison under horrible
conditions. An intelligent film about very
tough moral decisions and their consequences.
Rating: 9 (0 to 10), high +3 (-4 to +4). A
very heavy spoiler after the review discusses
the issues this film raises. This is a very
good film but some of its issues cannot be
discussed without disclosing plot twists.

This is an adult film in the literal meaning. It is a film that
does not sugar coat its view of reality. Things do not happen in
this film because of wishful thinking the way they might in a Frank
Capra film. RETURN TO PARADISE is a film without a safety net. It
asks the right questions and does not provide the viewer with pre-
digested answers. In A FEW GOOD MEN there are some interesting
issues raised, but there are giant neon signs telling the viewer
which side to sympathize with on the issues. Independently of the
Jack Nicholson character's ideas, the script makes him an insulting
male chauvinist. The film entirely sidesteps the issue of whether
Nicholson might be correct about defense, he clearly is a villain.
RETURN TO PARADISE also raises issues. But it is not a morality
tale. It does not tell the viewer what the answers are. There are
no neon signs.

Tony (David Conrad), Sheriff (Vince Vaughn), and Lewis (Joaquin
Phoenix) are having a good time together in Malaysia. They are
drinking beer, seeing the countryside, getting into trouble, and
smoking cheap hashish. They throw out the hashish they have not
used when Sheriff and Tony have to go home.

Flash forward two years. Sheriff is a limousine driver, and Tony
is an architect. Lewis has spent the last two years in a Penang
prison. Now the Malaysian government is going to hang Lewis as a
drug dealer unless he can prove he was only a user. To do that he
has to produce the people who shared the drugs with him.
Informally the Malaysian government says that they will give a
total of six years prison time to the one or two people who show up
and will commute Lewis's term. Lawyer Beth (Anne Heche) is in New
York and has the job of convincing Sheriff and Tony to go and take
their prison sentences so Lewis will not be executed. But how does
one weigh the greater evil when the prison is so bad that six years
may be tantamount to a death sentence or perhaps be enough to
permanently unhinge the prisoner.

Vince Vaughn and Joaquin Phoenix are perhaps better known as the
leads of CLAY PIGEONS. Here they have a very different moral
relationship but their fates are similarly connected. Anne Heche
of SIX DAYS, SEVEN NIGHTS is the lawyer stuck with the task of
getting two men to give up years of their lives to save the life of
someone they hardly know. The script is based on the film FORCE
MAJEURE by Pierre Jolivet. The original English language script
was written by Bruce Robinson who wrote what I considered the best
film I saw in the 1980s, THE KILLING FIELDS. And here he is
connected with the best film I have seen thus far in the 1990s.
Wesley Strict rewrote the script.

RETURN TO PARADISE is a rare film experience. It is an intelligent
and adult look at people making hard choices in the real world. I
give it a 9 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +3 on the -4 to +4
scale.

Heavy spoiler.... Heavy spoiler....Heavy spoiler...

If this film were only about the heavy price Sheriff and Tony were
being asked to pay to save Lewis's life, this would be a very good
film. But it goes much beyond that. Unfortunately one only
realizes the other issues of this film toward the end and I cannot
discuss them in the main body of may review.

If one were to ask if freedom of the press is a good thing or a bad
thing, I think most of us would vote in favor. We give the press a
broad range of freedoms in this country in the hopes that it will
help to topple dictators, or better yet never letting them get
started. We do not want to let the government limit our freedom of
expression, our First Amendment rights. If I were asked what is
the downside of giving this much power to the press the first
example that comes to mind is that we are giving the press the
right to publish how to make dangerous devices. There have been
issues in the past of magazines wanting to publish instructions for
building your own atomic bombs. It is also very timely that this
film comes out just as a media barrage is toppling a President.
There are certainly good arguments that the press has overstepped
its bounds.

Our First Amendment really hamstrings us in controlling dangerous
information. There are laws that may let us use restraining
orders, but deep down the First Amendment has given all the big
guns to people who want to make information available, for better
or for worse. In the case in RETURN TO PARADISE it was a lost
cause from the beginning. The international press was going tell
the world about Lewis's case. That would anger the Malaysian
government and they would punish Lewis. Any nobility on the part
of Sheriff and Tony would be misplaced. (And that really is
something we rarely see in film. The ethical thing to do is rarely
shown as being useless and pointless.) As soon as the press got
hold of the story, it was out of the main characters' hands. Lewis
was going to die, not because of his crime, but because the
founding fathers felt the press had to be unrestrained.

Another issue is raised in the film, that that we are much more
tolerant of drug use in this country than the rest of the world.
The Malaysian judge has a very good point. In his country children
are free from the risk of drugs. Malaysia has a much lower risk of
crime. Our lax attitude on drug enforcement also has a heavy
price. We walk a middle ground between either legalizing drugs or
treating drug use as harshly as the Malaysians do. We are afraid
to do the former and do not have the stomach to do the latter. And
that middle ground of shadow tolerance is also what kills Lewis in
this film. [-mrl]

Geometry enlightens the intellect and sets one's
mind right. All its proofs are very clear and
orderly. It is hardly possible for errors to enter
into geometrical reasoning, because it is well
arranged and orderly. Thus, the mind that constantly
applies itself to geometry is not likely to fall
into error. In this convenient way, the person who
knows geometry acquires intelligence. It has been
assumed that the following statement was written upon
Plato's door: "No one who is not a geometrician may
enter our house."
-- Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406)